[CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Mon Mar 30 23:29:07 UTC 2015

Hi Chris,

No fear mongering here, just any consultations with the GAO need to be considered on how they are framed as to the work of this group, seemingly innocuous statements can be very easily  misinterpreted or turned to support a variety of views that may be supportive or combatative to the work we are all doing. Having heard that GAO is consulting with a number of stakeholders my concerns are tempered somewhat but I still think that this needs to be handled carefully.

Some of my initial thoughts based on the discussion brief are inline below, for some of this I am playing devil's advocate as to how the responses could be utilized:

Topics for Discussion

1.    What is your experience related to the IANA functions and NTIA's role?

JG: This is a question that may be asked of the chairs in their personal capacity, no issue here at all.

2.    How would you describe NTIA's current role with regard to the IANA functions (e.g., stewardship, administrative/clerical, backstop, etc)?

JG: This is a factual question best answered by IANA or NTIA

3.    If you consider the implications of transitioning NTIA's role to a global multistakeholder community, what are the potential risks, if any, that come to mind?

a.    What risks can you identify if the transition does occur (i.e., such as any technical, operational, or accountability risks that are currently mitigated by NTIA's contract with ICANN)?

b.    What are the potential risks if the transition does not occur?

c.    Are you aware of the list of contingencies being considered by the cross-community working group on enhancing ICANN accountability (CCWG-Accountability)? If so, to what extent do you think this is a comprehensive list? Which risks, if any, are present regardless of NTIA's oversight role?

JG: I would have concerns that answers to this question could be used to bolster some who wish to see this transition fail. Stress testing and risk management can never be fully comprehensive but this can very easily be built into a narrative.

4.    Who, specifically, of the multi-stakeholder community might be most impacted by a transition of NTIA's role?  Are these potentially-impacted stakeholders sufficiently represented by the discussion and efforts to develop a transition proposal?

a.    [If stakeholder is from one of the multi-stakeholder constituency groups in ICANN] What is the process for raising concerns that arise from the perspective of your constituency to the multi-stakeholder community and to what extent do you think this process is effective in ensuring that all issues are considered in policy development and decisionmaking?

JG: Again I would have concerns that a narrative could be built around balance and bias. I think the section on policy development and decision making is outside of the remit of this group, we are not examining the fundamentals of ICANNS multistakeholderism, if this question is framed specifically as to the multistakeholder composition of the CCWGs composition then I see less of an issue with this question.

5.    What are the most important issues for the transition proposal to address? Do you have a view on what structure or approach could most effectively address these issues?

JG: Great topic for interaction, can see definite value for both sides in discussing this.

·         What factors should be considered when evaluating transition proposals? To what extent do NTIA's core requirements address potential risks? (From the preamble: The extent to which NTIA's core requirements for the transition provide an effective framework to evaluate the transition proposal.)

JG: The first part of this question perfect again a great topic to discuss, the second part I do not believe is for us to define. The NTIA has delivered to us its requirements and we are working towards them, I don't feel it's the position of the CCWG to assess if those requirements are adequate or not.

As I said above if the GAO is meeting with multiple groups in order to build a solid balanced and informed opinion to deliver to the requesting parties then I support us engaging in that process, indeed even if the CCWG was the sole interviewee I would support the meeting, but I still believe that solid ground rules for any engagement which may reflect on the work of the group need to be established. I have 100% confidence in our co-chairs, but we need to give them all of the information and a solid framework of how responses on behalf of the group may be presented.

If the chairs are to meet purely in their personal capacities then much of what I said may be moot but that has yet to be determined.

James

From: Chris Disspain [mailto:ceo at auda.org.au]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 10:26 PM
To: James Gannon
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Hi James,

I get that some people are concerned in the way you have expressed. What I'm not clear about is 'what is the fear?'. We have 3 very experienced people chairing the CCWG. What are we concerned that they'll do?

Cheers,

Chris

On 31 Mar 2015, at 08:22 , James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:

Oh no I agree that the request should definitely be honored, but we needs to be very clear on how we present the work and that any conversations that the chairs have are either in their personal capacities or within a clearly defined scope if speaking on behalf of the group.

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 7:26 PM
To: James Gannon
Cc: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez; Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

I agree that we should approach the GAO's request with care and thoughtfulness.  On the other hand, I don't think we can view this is a request that we can simply accept or reject as we see fit, or where we can freely negotiate the content and direction of the questions.

Greg

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
Based on the questions outlined in the GAO brief I think that the meeting may not align with a broad overview of the methodology and structure, if they are willing to talk about that and not delve into specific questions on experience of the co-chairs, risk identification, stakeholder representation and the extent that the NTIAs criteria are sufficient, then this may be a different discussion. B

But as outlined their questions are very specific, and I would say tailored to looking at the transition in a certain manner. We need to quell our willingness to share here and be very careful in how we approach this.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 6:46 PM
To: Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Dear Mathieu

As far as I understand the GAO has been put in charge to review the IANA transition process and inform Congress.

At this point I think it would be very useful to fully brief them on the methodology, working groups structure and expected timelines for the broader community inputs.
It is in any case the best opportunity to explain the whole system to the people who are going to evaluate its results and make recommendations to the lawmakers. If you convinced them, they will convince the lawmakers in a way that is not possible during open hearings.

I would refrain in the brief from any content issue at this time.

Best of luck

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg at isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8335 2487<tel:%2B506%208335%202487> (cel)
+506 4000 2000<tel:%2B506%204000%202000> (home)
+506 2290 3678<tel:%2B506%202290%203678> (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA

On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April).

Your inputs are welcome.

Best regards,
Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet :

April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs

Date :

Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000

De :

Healey, John C <HealeyJ at GAO.GOV><mailto:HealeyJ at GAO.GOV>

Pour :

'rickert at anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>' <rickert at anwaelte.de><mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>, 'mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>' <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>, 'leonfelipe at sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>' <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx><mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February.

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) proposed transition of  key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I'll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please "reply all" so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?
*         Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 - 11:00 EST
*         Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 - 12:00 EST
*         Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 - 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you'd like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst
Physical Infrastructure Team
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548
(202) 512-5006<tel:%28202%29%20512-5006>   |   HealeyJ at gao.gov<mailto:HealeyJ at gao.gov>

<GAOHQ-#7198516-v2-EXTERNAL_STAKEHOLDER_QUESTIONS_-_FOR_DISTRIBUTION.DOCX>_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150330/8b1cae04/attachment.html>